YECist's tragically weak view of God

[chris777]

Doesn't quite work I'm afraid.
Mallon's point was that the original authors did not intend to teach cosmology ancient or modern.

If you want to reverse that, you have to claim Genesis was teaching cosmology to the ancient Hebrews and that scientific 'advances' are a perversion of scriptural cosmology.

Geocentrism and Flat Earth anyone?

Geocentrism, cannot be disproven scientifically can it? as for flat earth Scripture never teaches that.

So yes I would say they were teaching cosmology, in that it teaches the origin of the universe.

 

[chris777]

Mallon's point was that the original authors did not intend to teach cosmology ancient or modern.
i think that this is both the first and most important distinction to make in the discussion of the ANE basis for the OT.

ANE ?

In order for God to speak to people, He used human language, this language is by necessity embedded in a linguistic-cultural-historical matrix that includes things like where did the stars come from and where does God live.

The problem comes from using these ideas to communicate something else, if the something else is what is important and is the purpose of the communication then the matrix is incidental, necessary as packaging is to get a present to your lover through the mail, but certainly not the present itself.

Likewise if God intended to teach us that He created the heavens and the earth, that the earth is his footstool and the heavens are his great temple, he had to use human metaphors of things that the first hearers were familiar with, hence the metaphors these ideas are wrapped in.

What do you propose the meaning is then if not of our origin?

but to ask questions like:
is God's footstool really green or is it blue, which is the dominant color of the earth (earth as land, earth as watery ball) not only misses the point, but elevates the packaging to the same level as the present.

But that question was not asked, you are putting words in someones mouth.

teaching as a timeless, transcultural, truth for all believers or using as a need to communicate is this great and important distinction that i think is primarily missed in the YECist community.

And again what is the true purpose of the genesis account then?

 

[chris777]

I'm not being combative at all. It irritates me, however, when you reject evidence out of hand without having first understood it. As much as I'm sure you would like the science of supercontinents put into laymen's terms for the general audience, you seem to be admitting in your previous post a few pages back that you yourself are having a hard time grasping the "snoozefest" papers I alluded to. So why reject them out of hand?
Not at all. That's what I did in my previous reply to you -- correct your erroneous understanding of plate tectonism.

I am sorry i tried to simplify the theory to the point that you think it was incorrect, I have put a lot more time into this than I planned, and I did not feel like reiterating the whole thing over again.

No, it is not what you said. There is more to tectonics than simple continental plates floating about randomly on the aesthenosphere.

uhhh was that not the point of me throwing out a simplified version of it?

The plates are being physically pushed about from specific loci (like the mid-Atlantic ridge) and pulled down elsewhere (like the Mariana trench). These are the forces that drive continental plates into one another, creating supercontinents; not the wave action of the magmatic mantle, as you suppose. This is why you are wrong.

And what are the supposed forces?
I left out gravitational and magnetic forces, along with the fluidic nature of the mantle, not because I am Ignorant, or disbelieve, but because it was extraneous.
As for wave action, do you honestly believe that Gravity doesnt affect the mantle and cause surging, much like the tides?
now as for supercontinents, I dispute pangea as myth, in that it is highly suspect to "convienence" for explaining various other theories. now as for tectonics, I do not nessesarily dispute that.
But I proclaim their are other competing theories, that I don't nessesarily accept either, but for examples sake
I repost the interesting, if not nessesarily acceptable alternate theory
http://www.nealadams.com/
http://continuitystudios.net/pangea.html
Again I repeat I post these as examples of alternatives, to pangea,

Would the sciences of geology, biology, and palaeontology be related if they all disagreed with each other? No. But they don't, so what's your point?
Evolution, in fact, is THE universal theory that makes sense of these three independent fields.

that all research into them is influenced with the expectation of producing results affirming evolution.

Nice try. But your attempt at turning the tables by switching a few of my words doesn't work for the very reason that Assyrian pointed out above. Read it again. The logic doesn't hold. Instead, you seem to be agreeing with me that the ancient Hebrew cosmology isn't scientific, which I doubt you were trying to do.

on the contrary you read it correctly, I posted it as an example
of the focus on science above that of scripture, as well as
to demonstrate how you twist the scriptures the same way you complain about "creation scientist" twisting science

Flat-earth geocentrists feel the same way about you!

I have found no verses stating the earth is flat, in scripture, and as for geocentric, their is no evidence that we are not potentially in the exact center of the universe, (I am also un aware of any scriptures actually calling the earth the center of the universe)

 

[chris777]

Why should I be concerned? Who am I to judge whether the bike manual writers are Christian or not?

Those infidels are sure to go to hell.

You said it

Are you saying their is another way of salvation apart from Christ?
Or that you arent concerned about the lost?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What do you propose the meaning is then if not of our origin?


the origins of the semitic peoples.

And again what is the true purpose of the genesis account then?

genesis chapter 1 is 1st the sabbath, 2nd putting the neighbor's gods into their place as created, 3rd the preamble for the treaty of the Great King.

ANE
ancient near east


Geocentrism, cannot be disproven scientifically can it?

crucial element is "the earth does not move" falsified by pendulum and coriallis effect

 

[Mallon]

I am sorry i tried to simplify the theory to the point that you think it was incorrect,

You didn't simplify the theory to the point that I think it's incorrect. You simplified the theory to the point that is incorrect. This isn't an ambiguous, subjective matter, here. Your understanding of the Wilson cycle is just plain wrong. Hate to put it so bluntly, but my point doesn't seem to be getting across.

uhhh was that not the point of me throwing out a simplified version of it?

Your point was to misrepresent and oversimplify the Wilson cycle and the formation of supercontinents? If so, then you did a good job!

And what are the supposed forces?

You're kidding, right? I just told you above. Slab-pull and ridge-push.

As for wave action, do you honestly believe that Gravity doesnt affect the mantle and cause surging, much like the tides?

I'm sure gravity plays a great role. Certainly, it induces slab-pull, which is thought to drive mantle convection. The forces acting within the mantle are mainly convective, though, and not simply gravitational (and certainly not "surge" forces, like we see in the ocean tides).

now as for supercontinents, I dispute pangea as myth, in that it is highly suspect to "convienence" for explaining various other theories.

Do you similarly suspect gravity because it "conveniently" explains the orbits of planets and the force that keeps our feet on the ground?
Do you similarly suspect particle theory because it "conveniently" explains the Northern lights and detergents?
With all due respect, what kind of reasoning is that? You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

I repost the interesting, if not nessesarily acceptable alternate theory
http://www.nealadams.com/
http://continuitystudios.net/pangea.html
Again I repeat I post these as examples of alternatives, to pangea

I guess the fact that these alternatives have yet to be published in the scientific literature or accepted by any geologist, for that matter, means nothing to you. Seems Mr. Adams got the thumbs-up from the New York Times, though. Guess it's a start!

that all research into them is influenced with the expectation of producing results affirming evolution.

You've been saying this a lot lately, but you've done a rather poor job of supporting your hearsay. Care to provide an actual concrete example?

on the contrary you read it correctly

Great!

I have found no verses stating the earth is flat, in scripture, and as for geocentric, their is no evidence that we are not potentially in the exact center of the universe, (I am also un aware of any scriptures actually calling the earth the center of the universe)

Then you haven't been reading your Bible literally enough! The Bible suggests a flat earth at the centre of our solar system many times:
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml
Like I said, just as you feel TEists twist the Scriptures, so too do flat-earthers feel about you!

 

[Mallon]

You said it

And evidently, you missed my sarcasm.

Are you saying their is another way of salvation apart from Christ?
Or that you arent concerned about the lost?

What? I'm saying I have no way of judging whether someone is Christian or not from reading a bike repair manual.
Similarly, we cannot judge peoples' hearts based on whether or not they believe in evolution. Again, simply because God isn't mentioned in a science paper (or a bike manual) does not mean that the author is an atheist. Don't be so quick to judge.

 

[Assyrian]

as I stated earlier I am not a creationist,nor do I agree with their methods.
as for education, Again my concern is that the only viewpoint being expressed in education is what many call scientific, look at where the whole system is heading, it is basically educating the masses so that they can compete in the "rat race".
The problem I have with that is it de values people if they have a disability, or other disadvantage, sure many people are able to over come these things, but the vast majority are not and end up in their menial dead end jobs. We get told our children are being "left behind" But how is it truely freedom, if we are forced into a "competition" , with a country that basically pays slave wages. The mentality is getting more and more like a business, which has many scientifically influenced idealologies, including darwinism.
And as for choosing, again I do not think you are comprehending my point. We cannot love both the world and God.
At some point you are going to die, and you will be forced to let go of your earthly belongings, and accumulations, which includes science. I concede many technical improvements are made, however, at what cost, are they made?

If they are just tools, they should be something you are at least willing to part with , with the realization it is temporary, and not eternal.

Jer 29:4Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon:
5 Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce.
6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease.
7 But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.

There is a very traditional response of Christians facing problems to retreat into a pietistic rejection of the world. But if we do how can we be salt and light? Even if we are strangers and sojourners in the world, we still have a responsibility for the countries we live in. We should still continue to seek its welfare. The only way the USA can continue to prosper is either switch to the sweatshop wages of its competitors, or be a leader in science and technology. You clearly reject the idea of slave wages, that only leaves scientific excellence. But this is being hamstrung by American Christians in the name of the bible.

...I am un aware of anything contained within genesis that conflicts with what science has "discovered" save evolution...

Astronomy, geology, virology...

When I hear you state that scripture is allegorical, I realize that much of it is, however Genesis is never given as an allegory, of creation, and it is certainly not a Myth.
...
Tahts the problem I have with how TE presumes its myth, I am un aware of any parable or allegory, that is not presented seperately in a manner that it is distinguished as an allegory, Whereass Genesis is presented as fact, and the arguement, that the Hebrews, were "not enlightened" enought to comprehend a more elaborate explanation, doesn't jive with all the philosophical debates that existed back then within the Greco/Roman communities that infact believed in some form of evolution.

Not all allegories and parables are labeled that way. Jerusalem and her sisters Ezek 16, or the Good Samaritan are left without any indication of whether they are literal or not. The same with Jesus' claim to be a door.

While the story of Adam and Eve consistently claims they were tempted by a snake who ended up slithering on its belly and eating dust as a punishment, we read in the rest of the bible that the 'snake' was really a fallen angel, Satan. In other word people like Ezekiel John and Jesus himself, interpreted the snake allegorically.

We read in Genesis itself that Adam was not just a single individual, but God's name for all the people he created male and female Gen 1:26 & 5:2. In Gen 6 we read of angels marrying the daughters of Adam (v 2), even though Jesus tells us angels don't marry. We read about God saying he regretted creating Adam (v 6) and was going to blot out Adam and all the animals from the face of the earth (v 7), even though according to a literal interpretation, Adam was already dead when the flood came. (Incidentally all these references are ha'adam, the man. See rmwilliamsll's Ish-Ishshah adam-eve)

 

[chris777]

What do you propose the meaning is then if not of our origin?
the origins of the semitic peoples.

so do you believe they are a special creation created after the rest of creation?
And also what about all of the other seperate events mentioned in it, ?

And again what is the true purpose of the genesis account then?

genesis chapter 1 is 1st the sabbath,

so are you saying the other 6 days mentioned of the creation are irrelevant?

2nd putting the neighbor's gods into their place as created

I am not aware of them even beig mentioned.

, 3rd the preamble for the treaty of the Great King.

but is this all you believe about it?

Geocentrism, cannot be disproven scientifically can it?

crucial element is "the earth does not move" falsified by pendulum and coriallis effect

Well after looking at the flat earth site, I would have to agree that the flat earth believers would call me heretic, but I would also do the same with them, as they appear to stretch scripture in the same manners as those they complain against.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

2nd putting the neighbor's gods into their place as
I am not aware of them even beig mentioned

Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.

is a direct slam at the Babylonians who worshipped the moon in particular and their astrology. God is saying that He not their gods created the moon and sun and that their role in the heavens is as mere timekeepers at His beck and call.

as they say: them is fighting words.

it also shows how the distraction into the science and historical order of Gen 1has impoverished sermons and studies of Gen 1 so that people think science instead of thinking ANE ....

3rd the preamble for the treaty of the Great King.
but is this all you believe about it?

are you even aware of M.Kline?
the treaty of the Great King is the framework to interpret the entire structure of God's covenant and as such is one of the really big ideas in systematic theology.

again, it is telling that these ideas are not even available to the general man in the pew because for 100 years fundamentalist sermons have revolved around fighting modern science rather than exegesis of the passages in and for themselves. the discussion is greatly impoverished because of this false battle.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

to retreat into a pietistic rejection of the world


in any careful study of the origins of modern fundamentalism, in which YECist is anchored, both this pietism and millennialism must certainly rank as the dominant principles of the movement.

what is interesting is that the current engagement of these same people with both the political and social systems is a new thing. and requires an understanding of how fundamentalism is emerging from nearly 100 years of quietism to try to fight in the wider world. The current offensive qualities of YECism need to be explained both in the light of their pietistic roots and their new activity in schools and in politics. something turned them on despite their history of insularity, pietism and such.

in any case, the rejection of the world's wisdom is still a crucial part of the entire package, this radicaldichotomy between special and general revelation and the almost manichaen division between theology and science.

 

[shernren]

Tahts the problem I have with how TE presumes its myth, I am un aware of any parable or allegory, that is not presented seperately in a manner that it is distinguished as an allegory, Whereass Genesis is presented as fact, and the arguement, that the Hebrews, were "not enlightened" enought to comprehend a more elaborate explanation, doesn't jive with all the philosophical debates that existed back then within the Greco/Roman communities that infact believed in some form of evolution.

The Greco/Roman communities which possessed proto-science came at least five hundred years after Israel (my history is horrible). The early Israelites didn't even know how to smelt metal when the Kingships began. Arguing that since the Greeks could scientifically discuss origins (they couldn't, by the by) therefore the Jews should have been able to is like arguing that Newton should have known how an atom bomb works because Einstein and Minkowski could discuss relativity.

Unless you are arguing that Genesis was actually written during the time of Hellenistic Judaism? Maybe you're a documentary hypothesis believer in hiding...

 

[Assyrian]

Shernren's back

 

[random_guy]

Again, since there are so many points, I'll just address the science one.

This one little sentece is going to be tricky , as it leads into a great deal of the issue, but here goes
in a reply to chief you stated:

I have several elaborations on this . First you stated this in such a manner that unless the anwser is given to you in the exact manner you demand then you are unwilling to listen to it.
If, you do not hold science as the" do all end all, be all" method of communication, or debate, then, Why is no other explanation acceptable to you?

I only hold science as the best tool for explaining that natural world. If you carefully read what it means by, "tool used to study the natural world", it's pretty obvious I'm acknowledging a major "flaw" in science. We can't use it to learn about truths, morality, or any other philosophical/metaphysical questions. Science is limited to the study of the natural world.

Not only that, since is done by people, it's not perfect. However, until you can show me a better method of studying the natural world, I will continue to accept science as the best current tool, just like I continue to accept evolution as the best current explanation.

Much like the manner you claim that creationist do.
I never claimed you stated science was perfect,

what people think science is perfect?
Randon Guy for one

Gee, I guess you don't read your own posts, do you? Well, I guess technically, you didn't say I stated science is perfect. However, you claim that I believe science is perfect, even though nowhere in my posts did I ever make such a claim. Not only that, if you read my posts with laptoppop, you'd learn that I think peer review could be changed due to the rise of the internet.

But I will say I think you hold to it like you would a wife, "omitting her imperfections" and singing her praises.

Or maby a better analogy would be a classic car, that has seen better days, that You (as well as all the other scientist you keep refering to ) are continually tuning up, and patching, much in the way you keep stating about your supposed not viewing science as perfect.
another quote to demonstrate

It may seem like I've been singing praises, but that's only because you bring up so many errors in your post, there's no time to sufficiently discuss it. I spend all my posts fixing these mistakes.

Like I tried saying in another post, Is a miracle still a miracle if you know how it is done?
Perhaps I should go a step further, and ask in a manner that will cause some to question which is true.
The Bible speaks of how Jesus Fed the masses with mere scraps. Now I have seen many modern so called "scientific" explanations for many biblical miracles even how Jesus walked on water, But I ask you and anyone else who cares to respond, how can science explain where he pulled tangable (and edible) matter completely and totally out of thin air?

Irrelevant to me. Why do I need scientific explanations for the miracles of Jesus? Do you have evidence or proof that he did or didn't do it? Give me a science experiment that falsifies this miracle. It seems like you still don't understand my position, and this may be why you think that I think science is perfect.

 

[jereth]

Shernren's back

Woohoo!

With both him and glaudys away, YECism was seeming more and more attractive

 

[shernren]

Woohoo!

With both him and glaudys away, YECism was seeming more and more attractive

Oh, come on. The Book of Works isn't going to stay shut just because a few of its avid readers are away. XD

 

[random_guy]

You are blessed then, its not that hard to find I live in GA I am sure if you google it, you will find many a heated debate , I had an article fro ma local professor of evolution decrying God, I Will look and see If I can find it online.

Last reply for the night I think Im catchin ga cold, and Im exhausted, and in pain, but who knows If I cant sleep I may come back earlier.

I just remembered this. Please find the article. If anything, the professor probably decried God outside of class or something. I doubt any University would allow any professor to denounce God's existence since nearly every single university I know of has an anti-discriminatory statement against sex, race, religion, and sexual orientation. I can not emphasize this enough.

Remember you also said virtual all secular universities, this occurs. I think this is complete bull.

The University of Utah is fully committed to affirmative action and to its policies of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in all programs, activities, and employment with regard to race, color, national origin, sex, age, status as a person with a disability, religion, sexual orientation, and status as a veteran or disabled veteran. The University seeks to provide equal access to its programs, services and activities for people with disabilities. Reasonable prior notice is needed to arrange accommodations. Evidence of practices not consistent with these policies should be reported to the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, (801) 581-8365 (voice or TDD).

The University of Georgia (“the University”) is committed to maintaining a fair and respectful environment for living, work and study. To that end, and in accordance with federal and state law, Board of Regents’ policy, and University policy, the University prohibits any member of the faculty, staff, administration, student body, or visitors to campus, whether they be guests, patrons, independent contractors, or clients, from harassing and/or discriminating against any other member of the University community because of that person’s race, sex (including sexual harassment), sexual orientation, ethnic or national origin, religion, age, disabled status, or status as a disabled veteran or veteran of the Vietnam era. Incidents of harassment and discrimination will be met with appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from the University.

And so on. I think it's agaist Federal Law to not have an anti-discriminatory policy. I bet the professor you're talking about, the one you think represents every single secular University, spoke out against God outside of his classroom (which is fine). To do it during class means that he would be reprimanded at any university. Ball's in your court. Show us you weren't making stuff up. Give me evidence that virtual all secular universities teach that God doesn't exist.

 

[Assyrian]

Here perhaps?

 

[shernren]

So that's where AV1611VET got his PhD in the physics of the strong nuclear force ...

 

[The Lady Kate]

Science is derived from many greco roman philosophies, and they were in fact pagans

So is democracy, medicine, theater, many languages still spoken, and just about every building that has columns in front of it. So what?

When computer models are used that extend far into the future or past, I would say so, as for divination itself, I was attempting to demonstrated how those ideas and practices have permiated our society as innoculous.

"I dropped a rock on my foot yesterday...it hurt."

"I dropped a rock on my foot last week... it hurt."

"Gee... I better be careful with this rock I'm holding... if I drop it on my foot, it'll hurt!"

Divination... or inductive reasoning?

accuracy is not its only goal

Actually, it is. the people who practice science may have personal agendas, but the process itself, when done right, is geared towards finding accurate answers

whereas schripture apparently has not?

Like science, Scripture proves itself true and useful when it is used in the correct way for the correct purpose.

That wasn't the question

The question implies that I must choose one or the other. Since I don't have to choose, the question is meaningless.

Again with the diversions, its like no one wants to really put themselves out

Well, if you don't want to listen to people and see for yourself what they're about, there's really no other advice that will help.

I do not see you denying it, if its paranoia, then present some examples of how it is

It's paranoia because it simply is not happening. What's to prove?

Jesus is the larger picture

Precisely. Jesus.... not YEC, or any other interpretation of the Bible.